6
   

LIBERAL CENSORSHIP PREVAILS

 
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 08:30 am
The Washington Times
EDITORIAL: The forgotten virtue of firearms


By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

During Christmas week, a registered sex offender with a conviction for attempted murder used a gun to take three hostages at a Wytheville, Va., post office. Not too surprisingly, the national media gave the crime extensive news coverage. Such sensationalism leaves a distorted image about what happens with guns every day in the United States. When guns work to stop crime, there's not nearly as much drama to sensationalize and, as a result, that much less coverage

In Oklahoma City the previous week, an armed citizen singlehandedly stopped an attack that surely would have resulted in a multiple-victim public shooting. The media gave the event scant attention. The scene went down when a Marine, who was on leave and came home for the holidays, started firing in an apartment parking lot. Before anyone was harmed, another man aimed his concealed handgun at the attacker and ordered him to put down his weapon. The shooter dropped his gun and ran into his father's apartment, barricading himself in. Three-and-a-half hours later, the man surrendered to the police.

A Marine with a gun who wanted to cause harm would surely be able to maim or kill a lot of people. Those dead bodies would have attracted exhaustive coverage. Of course, corpses are newsworthy in our sensational culture, but when an armed citizen stops an attack, the heroism rates barely a blip on the national radar screen. In this case, a search found just one television news story on the incident, and it left out the identity of the man who saved the day. In our confused times, murderers, it seems, are more interesting than heroes.

An important detail that is neglected in news coverage is that all the multiple-victim public shootings in America - crimes in which more than three people were killed - happened where legal concealed handguns are banned. The Wytheville post office is such a gun-free zone, not to mention that the felon who committed the crime was banned from possessing a firearm anywhere. The Oklahoma City attack was stopped because the man who stopped it could carry a concealed handgun.

Often what's true and what makes good TV are two different things. But either way, news standards don't give people any idea about the costs and benefits of people owning guns. Police are extremely important in stopping crimes, but police understand that they almost always arrive on the scene after a crime has occurred. Heroic actions of citizens who stop attacks deserve a lot more attention. [ emphasis added by David ]
 
ebrown p
 
  5  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 08:37 am
I don't think you know what "censorship" means.

engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 08:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I don't think you read your own article. It states several times that the reason for the disproportionate coverage is sensationalism, not censorship. Every day, news editors decide which few stories of the thousands available they are going to run with. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the philosophy of liberals and conservatives alike.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:09 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

I don't think you know what "censorship" means.


Right back at u!
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:10 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

I don't think you read your own article. It states several times that the reason for the disproportionate coverage is sensationalism, not censorship. Every day, news editors decide which few stories of the thousands available they are going to run with. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the philosophy of liberals and conservatives alike.
It amounts to the same thing, as a practical matter.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:36 am
Having spent some time in OKC I can sincerely report that a man with a gun isn't news of any kind.

Seriously.

Guns are really common there.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:40 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Private news organizations deciding which news is worthy of printing is not censorship.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:44 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Private news organizations deciding which news is worthy of printing is not censorship.
It is if it excludes information contrary to its preferred philosophy
and then presents its own selected, filtered information to the public as "the news".
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
If both conservative and liberal media outlets fail to carry the story, why is it "liberal" censorship? Not every failure of a media outlet to praise gun ownership every day is a liberal conspiracy. Sometimes it's just boring or at least less interesting than a 70ft three pointer at the buzzer.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

ebrown p wrote:
Private news organizations deciding which news is worthy of printing is not censorship.
It is if it excludes information contrary to its preferred philosophy
and then presents its own selected, filtered information to the public as "the news".

But you've presented no evidence or even any implication that such filtering is philosophically based and the article offers a completely different (and more likely) explanation.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 10:01 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
If both conservative and liberal media outlets fail to carry the story, why is it "liberal" censorship?
I accept your reasoning; objection sustained.


engineer wrote:
Not every failure of a media outlet to praise gun ownership every day is a liberal conspiracy.
The desired effect can be achieved without a conspiracy;
it only takes 1 liberal to suppress incoming information.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 10:30 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It is if it excludes information contrary to its preferred philosophy
and then presents its own selected, filtered information to the public as "the news".


That describes every news outlet since the beginning of time. Every news organization has a philosophy. Every news organization filters what makes it into its pages.

That is not censorship.

But, if you had the power to decide what news stories all private news organization had to put in their pages...

That's not what you want, is it?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 10:31 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
The desired effect can be achieved without a conspiracy;
it only takes 1 liberal to suppress incoming information.




I happen to be 1 liberal (strokes beard menacingly)

((it is interesting that conservatives don't seem to have this power))
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 10:34 am
@ebrown p,
Do you have a fluffy cat?

You need to have a fluffy cat and stroke it -- menacingly -- to get the full effect.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 10:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
When guns work to stop crime, there's not nearly as much drama to sensationalize and, as a result, that much less coverage


Not only does David not understand the definition of censorship, he obviously has no understanding whatever of how a newsroom works. A dog bites a man, it's not newsworthy -- dogs do that all the time. A man bites a dog in public -- now you've got a story.

I fail to see what "censorship" has to do with any of this, even if I were willing to stipulate that the news media tend to be "liberal" (whatever that means, and, no, I'm not ready to stipulate that at all).
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 11:11 am
In their quest against personal freedom, some liberals deny that
citizens' gun possession is useful in preventing crime
( not that this matters much any more since the USSC decision in HELLER ).

Statistician Gary Kleck informs us of 2,500,000 occasions a year
of violent crime being suppressed by a mere peaceful display
of defensive firearms by the intended victim.
Such stories as this one of non-violent crime suppression
have a bearing upon this liberal allegation and the public perception of the situation.

Anti-freedom liberals wish to avoid having information disproving
liberal allegations reach the public.

For that reason, thay censor it.

Andy is just trying to disguise, conceal n justify liberal censorship.



David
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 11:15 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
For that reason, thay censor it.


Who is this nebulous "they"? And don't you need to have political power in order to "censor" something? So-called 'Liberals', even if you could adequately identify this beast, have no such power.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 11:23 am
@Merry Andrew,
David wrote:
For that reason, thay censor it.
Merry Andrew wrote:
Who is this nebulous "they"?
The supporters of liberalism; its adherents.
(BTW, inasmuch as u r quoting me: I wrote "thay" not "they"; I spelled it correctly.)



Merry Andrew wrote:
And don't you need to have political power in order to "censor" something?
U don 't. Its ez to imagine a publisher being extorted by whoever chooses to do so
against publishing something. Not all power is political.
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 11:23 am
@Merry Andrew,
"They" may also be catering to the needs or wants of their readers/viewers

one wouldn't tune into jerry springer to get parent advice, you tune in to see train wrecks of humanity

interestingly enough, you might tune in to oprah to get parenting advice and still get train wrecks of humanity
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 11:41 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Its ez to imagine a publisher being extorted by whoever chooses to do so
against publishing something. Not all power is political.


Just how would liberals extort a publisher (seeing as we don't have guns).
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » LIBERAL CENSORSHIP PREVAILS
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 09:07:49